As the Nexus reported in September, I.V. Community Services District (CSD) legal counsel Ross G. Trindle told the board on Sept. 12 that the California Supreme Court’s ruling in the California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland case could be interpreted to allow citizens to bring a tax to the board.

Tim Bittle, director of legal affairs for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and representative for representing Upland in the case, said hisgroup filed a petition in Sept. to make sure the court’s decision did not “open the door to abuse” from local governments, considering how “confusing” the court’s opinion is.

Article Cannabis Biz Executive, Reading the Fine Print in California’s Cannabis Codes: Could the Industry There Come to a Screeching Halt?

For nearly twenty years, California’s cannabis industry labored in the grey market. 1996’s Proposition 215 offered patients their first real protections, by codifying a doctor’s right to recommend the therapeutic use of cannabis. In 2004, the Compassionate Use Act clarified certain patient’s rights, including the ability to cultivate collectively (en masse) without the threat of felony criminal prosecution “on that basis alone.” (Enterprising sheriff’s departments and DEA agents frequently found other bases.) But, the so-called collective model restricted operations’ to the medical needs of the patient members, and required the operations be conducted on a not-for-profit basis.

Residents opposed to the new rules, which would permit manufacturing and testing of marijuana while banning dispensaries, argued the new law would present a disconnect between what the city allows and what parents try to teach their children about drugs.

CYPRESS — All marijuana businesses, including sales, cultivation and production, will be illegal in Cypress, following the City Council’s Sept. 25 vote to ban commercial pot activities.

Under state law, anyone may grow up to six marijuana plants for personal use, but Cypress’s new rules require plants to be kept indoors in a locked area with a fire extinguisher. The prohibition on commercial activities includes pot deliveries and lab testing as well as dispensaries and growing operations.

The council approved the ban in a 4-1 vote, with Councilwoman Mariellen Yarc voting no. The new rules go into effect in late October and do not change the rights of medical marijuana users.

Instead of seizing the opportunity to reap a windfall of tax revenue from retail sales of marijuana, South Bay cities are treading gingerly, and many have called for moratoriums or outright bans of marijuana handling within their boundaries.

The stage is set for the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors to finalize a permanent ordinance regulating the local marijuana industry after members heard comments on a draft Tuesday.

In a standing-room only meeting Tuesday, supervisors heard feedback from the public on the proposed ordinance passed by the Planning Commission on Sept. 14 that would, among other things, cap the number of outdoor growing sites in unincorporated areas of the county at 50.

Supervisors plan to vote Oct. 17 on the rules, which they aim to have in place before the state begins issuing licenses to cannabis businesses on Jan. 1, 2018.

Nearly 11 months have passed since California voters legalized marijuana, but with retail sales potentially less than three months away, much remains in flux in Ventura County and throughout the state.

Perhaps the only conclusions we can draw are:

Our city and county leaders are a lot more cautious and conservative than their constituents when it involves marijuana, and

Los Angeles appears to be on its way to cornering the lucrative pot market in this part of the Southland, and all of the tax revenue and jobs that will come with it.